New Zealand has no general “right to be forgotten”, but it does have a specific law on harmful digital communications, a Privacy Act and a long-standing defamation regime. This guide explains, in general terms, how they fit together and what is realistic if negative content about you or your business appears online.
Harmful digital communications
The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 is the most relevant New Zealand law for many online disputes. It sets out communication principles, such as not posting content that is threatening, grossly offensive, or that discloses sensitive personal facts. The agency Netsafe and the District Court both have roles under the Act, and the court can consider remedies such as a correction or a right of reply. It looks at factors such as the seriousness of the harm, the context and the public interest, so outcomes vary. A New Zealand lawyer can explain whether and how the Act applies to your situation.
Privacy Act 2020
The Privacy Act 2020 regulates how agencies collect, hold and share personal information. It gives people a right to access and ask for correction of information held about them, but it does not create a general right to have lawful information erased from the internet. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner oversees the Act. Whether it helps depends on who holds the information and why.
Defamation
Defamation is governed by the Defamation Act 1992 and the common law. Truth, honest opinion and privilege can be defences. Proceedings can be costly and slow, and they can draw more attention to the content, so it is wise to speak to a New Zealand lawyer before deciding whether this route makes sense.
Intimate images
Posting intimate visual recordings without consent can be a criminal offence, and it is also covered by the harmful digital communications framework. If this has happened to you, contact the police and consider speaking to a lawyer or a support organisation. You do not have to deal with it alone.
Name suppression and old convictions
New Zealand courts can make name suppression orders in criminal cases, and these are decided by the court rather than by publishers. The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 lets some people with old, minor convictions treat their record as clean for most purposes. Neither changes what a news site published in the past, and eligibility depends on the offence and your history. A lawyer can advise.
What is realistic
- Accurate, lawful reporting on a matter of public interest is often kept, even when it is unwelcome.
- Content that is threatening, harassing, or seriously harmful may have a stronger case under the harmful digital communications framework, but results depend on the facts.
- Nobody can honestly guarantee a particular outcome or timeline.
- A stronger, accurate and authoritative online presence can change what people see first when they search for you or your business.
How we can help
We start by understanding what is online, where it appears and how much it matters. We then explain which of the routes above may be relevant, what is realistic, and how to build a stronger online presence over time. For legal action we recommend you speak to a lawyer in New Zealand. You may also like our guides for other countries.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change, and your situation may be different. For advice on your circumstances, speak to a qualified lawyer in New Zealand.
Related: how content removal is assessed, search suppression, the right to be forgotten by country comparison, and our international guides.